He has just published a new report on the murky doling out of coal fields, which has been worth billions of dollars to big firms. In political terms this is a stick of dynamite. Uproar ensued as soon as it landed on parliament’s doorstep on August 21st. Both chambers were shut within minutes. Parliament was shouted down again the next day, in a series of riotous scenes. The opposition chanted slogans denouncing the contracts and declaring that “all of Congress is black” from its dirty dealing (सारी कांग्रेस काली है). It wants the head of Manmohan Singh, the prime minister, and claims it will bawl parliament to a standstill every day until he resigns.

Until now little dirt has stuck to Mr Singh, despite the scandals under his government’s watch, including the crooked award of mobile-phone licences in 2008, which was also investigated by the CAG and led to a minister facing trial. Mr Singh has, and perhaps cultivates, a reputation for being a cuddly, grandfatherly type, around whom venal colleagues occasionally run rings. But this time it may be hard for him to deny responsibility. For much of the period in question he was directly in charge of the ministry of coal, as well as being prime minister.

At a minimum the report makes clear that lousy decisions were made. India’s state-owned coal-mining monopolist cannot dig up enough coal to supply the country’s needs. The government rightly decided to get more coal fields into the hands of private firms. It promoted a policy to establish privately owned “captive” mines. Each would supply a particular private project—an electricity or steel plant.

But how to get those coal fields from public hands into private? As far back as 2004 the government discussed auctions. After all, if coal fields were just doled out for free by the state, the recipients would enjoy “windfall profits”, it acknowledged. Yet that is exactly what then happened. Some 57 fields were given to private firms up until 2009 (most of them in a flurry, between 2004-2006). A government screening committee played god. There is a case for natural resources to be allocated rather than auctioned, but only if this is done transparently. Sadly the committees’ records and minutes do not explain how it decided who got lucky, according to the CAG’s report.

These were big decisions. The total value of the coal fields that were, in effect, given to the private sector is put at $34 billion by the CAG. That calculation is hotly disputed. Whatever the fine print, the sum in question is likely to be at least $10 billion. Many of India’s big industrial clans and conglomerates benefited, including the Jindals, Aditya Birla, Tata Sons, Essar Group and Adani.

The government, if it manages to get a word in, will argue it was following a tradition of administrative fiat and was in a hurry to boost coal production. But there is a kink in this argument. The actual output from those captive mines turned out to be disappointing—almost as if some owners had never planned to dig very hard in the first place. The government made little effort to monitor their output.

And there was already a pong in the air. India is facing a new era of “resource cronyism”, say some prominent economists, including one who has just been appointed as the government’s chief economics adviser. Financial types in Mumbai have long said some of the coal allocations were iffy. The parallels with the 2G mobile-phones scandal, where spectrum was handed by fiat out almost for free, are uncanny. Police investigators, or perhaps the supreme court, may decide to try establishing how each mine was allocated. At least until they have, allegations of favouritism, and graft, will sting.

The opposition, led by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), is being hypocritical as well as hysterical. As the government has pointed out, several bigwigs in the BJP supported the policy of allocating coal fields by committee, in preference to auction. Still, the damage to the ruling Congress-led coalition is likely to be real. It had known about the report for months. Even so there must be an outside chance that Mr Singh, who is 79, decides he has had enough. Supposing he stays, the air in parliament is likely to be fouler than ever, minimising the chance of any cross-party co-operation. Hopes that this legislative session might see a flurry of much-needed economic reforms, have for now been cast into a deep black pit.

Ok, lets wrap this up like educated-mature people. Agree with your commercial ideas - the cashless transaction bit if secure mobile commerce becomes possible in India, that could be a huge help. Agree there are issues in India that need to be addressed - not the kind you have talked about and not in the way you have talked about. Do not agree with your other recommendations. So lets agree to disagree respectfully and move on.

Fundamental cultural changes such as education of female children and encouraging freedom in choice of marriage partners as well as discouraging the payment of dowries and encouraging nuclear families rather than extended families. As well as allowing grater geographic and social mobility will help to decrease the cultural aspects of corruption.

This needs to be coupled with greater control of financial transactions. This can be done by going to non-cash transactions.

Beyond this anyone is free to practice any culture or religion they like. It hardly matters.

you MeghnaS and SMBts; love to have the last word. India has a serious problem with corruption and some Introspection is required. I certainly have a world view that I hold with a great deal of confidence. I am well traveled and have two postgraduate degrees one of which is in management. I have been thinking about these issues for a long time. I am not a cultural relativist. I am a realist and I am grown up thank you very much. Go lecture someone who is more vulnerable to your rhetoric. The west currently has some economic problems that will be solved in due time. India on the other hand is corrupt, environmentally degraded, (the water table in Punjab is now almost non-existent and Badal the chief minister continues to drain the treasury for his own enrichment) and has no leadership on the horizon to prevent it from total collapse. If India does not do something drastic it will suffer a very sad fate. Violence and other major population disturbance is much more likely in India than the west. I have no time to engage in this useless argument either. You and SMBts are the ones stridently defending some silly notion of the honor of Indian culture.

In Indian society the driving force for much social behavior is the preservation of reputation or 'face" within society. "Face" or "Izat" as it is known universally in India involves the chastity of women in the family and the control of them by male members of the family. It also means the responsibility of marriage of female children is the responsibility of the father and mother and generally involves the giving a "dowry" to secure a groom of equal or grater social status generally within the same caste. Family wealth is a great determinant of social status within a caste group. A family is driven by acquiring wealth and preserving "Izat".

This has many repercussions. The preservation of "Izat" by accepting bribes especially if this behavior is unlikely to be detected is preferable to being honest. Honesty does nothing for the way "Izat" is preserved in society as no one really knows weather an individual is honest in his dealings.

In the west the driving force for most individuals is the internal feeling of "Guilt" this traditionally originates from the christian concept of endangering of the "immortal soul" with sin. However, now this teaching has been secularized into the concept of social responsibility.

The Indian is driven by preservation of "Izat" will engage in dishonesty to preserve it in the west most people are driven by "social responsibility" and generally will act honestly if faced with a choice harmful to society.

These of course are generalizations, and it is the way a aggregate of the population acts that will determine how much corruption there is.

When Indians are removed from these cultural norms as when they move to the west, they adopt modes of behavior that are more in line with "guilt" vs "Izat".

banks will only add to the complexity and delay implementation of this technology. In Kenya no banks are involved in this. The article states that money equal to 25% of GNP goes through this system. They must have reduced fraud and errors to an acceptable level. Given the increasing penetration of mobiles this is a proof of concept. My point is that cashless transactions are possible even at the micro transaction level and probably at lower cost than actual cash. So theoretically and now practically the possibility exists to eliminate cash transactions. If people switch to precious metals for corruption purposes at some point that metal will have to be converted to cash in order to have it yield revenue and not be subject to devaluation.

Don't flatter yourself. I just have no time to talk to a brick wall. In the end your "facts" are irrelevant. You are living in a world that is a creation of the west and the younger generation has already rejected the old culture. Everyone in the world is moving on. You can have the job of reciting history. As the saying goes "the best way to predict the future is to create it". The west is creating the future and you will be living in it. No choice.

"ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA how rich India was before she was bled dry by an insidious combination of central asian invaders from the north west and sea-faring europeans."

Were the Indians sleeping when that 'bleeding dry' was taking place or were they in Dhyana-Dharana-Samadhi or reciting Vedas. Where was the response? Abject Collapse - the only response. Victimhood stories are good for wishing away tragedies.

You fail to grasp the fundamental nature of India's loss to the Muslim and British invaders. We were subjected to the worst kind of civilizational subjugation and most brutal humiliations by both these groups over very long periods and we had no answers for either of them. Our self-respecting youth, greatest of intellectuals, and powerful warriors could not organize themselves to overthrow these foreign dominations. Not just over decades but over centuries. The puny Irish overpowered by a neighboring Britain extracted themselves from foreign rule. America was not invaded and subjugated and brutally administered by Vietnam for even one decade. Kindly don't compare apples and peanuts.

But why did Tamils lose a vast amount of treasure - a significant source of equity for their overseas trade in South East Asia ? If you read my previous posts, you would know the precise reason why !! Malik Kafur's invasion of the Pandya stronghold of Madurai resulted in a destruction of the city followed by a loss of almost all its precious wealth. Following this, resources had to be diverted to rebuilding the city, its citadels, temples and palaces leaving very little to help traders in south east asia.
"Why were the Pandya Kingdom displaced by the Muslim satraps of the Delhi sultanate who could care less for the rapidly worsening plight of the Tamil traders stranglehold over trade in South East Asia." - Very good question. Poor strategy !! The pandya king at the time was warned not to leave the impenetrable fortress, but to fight defensively. However, the foolhardy king decided not to heed his advisors, but instead chose to fight the larger turkish army on the open field. They were outnumbered and the lost large numbers of their men. They retreated and fought from their fortress which by now could not be defended adequately as they had lost too many archers and long-range attacking soldiers. They were overpowered after a long siege and were forced to surrender all their wealth to the invading turks.(NOTHING TO DO WITH CULTURE...when two countries fight...one loses...would you blame pakistan's CULTURE for their loss in the 1971 war ? Would you blame britain's CULTURE for their loss in the American war of Independence ?)
"Giving excuses for failure is not an option. A capable culture would have handled challenges head on." - I guess by your claims since the germans lost the second world war, it was their incapable culture (which developed heavy armor tanks, submarine warfare, missile warfare, complex communication codes, and military strategies) that is to blame for their loss against the SOVIETS, not a delusional leader with an irrational hatred of Jews. Even better, since AMERICA LOST THE VIETNAM WAR, they necessarily have to be an INFERIOR/INCAPABLE CULTURE compared to the VIETNAMESE !!! LOL !!

" Fortunately many of us are now giving up Indian culture or at least its worst qualities which are substantial." - WRONG !! Indian culture(NO SUCH THING EXISTS - there is punjabi culture, bengali culture, tamil culture, marathi culture etc.,) has just as many bad qualities as "western culture". Indians had the caste system, the west had slavery, anti-semitism and indentured labor. India had gender discrimination, so did the west. India has corruption, SO DOES THE WEST.
"It was the British with Ram Mohan Roy's help who had to forcefully put an end to Sati and Thiugee." - How can you be so ignorant ? Sati existed ONLY in north west India(IT WAS RARELY PRACTICED ELSEWHERE) since even before the arrival of Alexander the Great and as far back as 50 BC, there are records of attempts by rulers to put an end to the practice. The turkish rulers of the Delhi sultanate and later every single Mughal ruler condemned and outlawed Sati(Jahangir, Akbar, Shahjahan and most importantly Aurangazeb). I am disappointed that an indian can be so ignorant about the history of Sati. Tragic !! The "thuggees" were a destructive, anti-social cult for whom you can blame "Indian culture" as much as you can blame the british for piracy in the high seas or "muslim culture" for islamic fundamentalists. The "thuggee" problem in India was greatly exaggerated in India as recorded by several british historians. To claim that indian culture is inferior JUST BECAUSE of the existence of "thuggees" is as preposterous as claiming "american culture" is inferior because they have more drug-gang related crimes here in the US than any other developed nation !

"Thank God we were forced to give up Indian culture then. And thank god many of us are giving up Indian culture now" - WRONG ! Let me come at it this way. The problem with indians today is that the west has convinced SOME OF US that anything of worth in this world was made/discovered by white men and so everyone else has to fall in line in order to achieve greatness. This cannot be farther from the truth !! "Indian culture" (whatever that means...I mean Kashmiris and Tamilians have almost nothing in common with each other or with bengalis and gujaratis...language, food, customs, religious beliefs, art, clothing, architecture, work ethic etc.,) is just as much to blame for our problems then, as it is to blame for the problems now. Can you blame America's serial wars in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq on "american culture" ?? Can you blame america's teen pregnancy rate, unacceptably high crime rate, incarceration rate on her culture ? It is simple and easy to blame a country's problem on her culture. It is however, usually the wrong answer. If India is corrupt today, it is because of a series of himalayan blunders perpetrated by myopic politicians over the last 60 years. From nationalization to subsidies, from the Panchsheel to the Shimla agreement, from economic planning to the licence raj, specific policies followed by illiterate sycophantic politicians have led india to metamorphose into a corruption-ridden society. Culture has NOTHING to do with it. Especially since there is NO SUCH THING AS INDIAN CULTURE !!!!

"It is the inability to move on and get better with time" - again...not true. Reforms in agriculture, archtecture, trade, literature and religion happened just as quickly in the east as it did in the west. There was no "stagnation" in India - cultural, economic or social UNTIL the british took over the country and put in policies that transformed india into a lump of clay fit to be moulded by british hands. The british systematically destroyed indian trade, agriculture, skilled labor and construction by a complex system of taxation, land grab, coercion, harassment and murder. Take famine for instance. In India's long history spanning thousands of years (and I'm obviously only talking about recorded history here) it was only when the british took over that large scale famines wiped out tens of millions of people in Bengal, Madras and the Deccan. Even during the "oppressive" mughal & turk rule that lasted nearly 600 years, India had no instances of large scale deaths related to famine. The East India company's rule between 1757 and 1857 effectively destroyed Indian industries and took over the most important sources of income for indians. Further, after their win at Plassey and Buxar, they took over revenue collection in India's richest state - Bengal. They repatriated billions of pounds every year to England, thus systematically draining the people of the land of their savings and setting a stage for the disaster that was to follow. The East India company and later Britain followed nefarious policies which deliberately stifled innovation and industrialization in India. They forced cotton farmers to sell their cotton to them which they shipped to the UK and shipped back expensive yarn and cloth to India, making huge profits and making a handful of Englishmen fabulously wealthy. They built factories in India where they were able to force large sections of the population to work for nothing and profited immensely. They carted indians around the world like farm animals and used them as indentured servants to build giant tea, coffee, teak, rubber and sugarcane plantations in the carribean, the pacific, sri lanka, malaya, assam and kerala. Generations of indentured servants broke their backs getting NOTHING in return so that the white man in england could afford luxuries for his family. If you feel indian culture is not "substantial", then you obviously need to read more about india's contribution to science, technology, agriculture, metallurgy, mathematics and astronomy BEFORE the arrival of the british. The number of NOBEL PRIZES won by a country is an astoundingly poor indicator of a country's cultural greatness. The NOBEL prize was instituted at a time when India was made desperately poor to fund the west's greed. While Britain was busy developing universities and setting up colleges at a frenetic pace, no effort was made to allow the Indians to do the same. In fact, the British deliberately disallowed universal education as they feared mass unrest. Can you call the oppressed scheduled caste communities in India "uncultured" or "inferior" just because most famous bollywood actors, industrialists, politicians, academicians, doctors and scientists in India are not Dalits ?? Is it their fault ? Or is it the fault of the upper castes who systematically discriminated against them and oppressed them for hundreds of years ? If Britain became rich between 1750 and 1950, it was at India's expense. The money which would've otherwise fed, clothed and nurtured over 100 million indians was systematically redirected toward a country whose population was less than 10 million at the time. If the same were to happen today, if we were to tax 1 billion indians into penury for nearly 200 years and patriate that money to Bihar ALONE (100 million people) I am sure Bihar would develop so much that it would put the US and Europe to shame.

"Catholic spirit was far more positive than the indian spirit" - Strongly disagree !! The "indian spirit"(no such thing existed in the 1500s.. India was fragmented into several kingdoms...there was a Vijayanagar spirit, a Pandya spirit, a Maratha spirit, a Mughal spirit etc.,) was just as vibrant as the "catholic spirit". It was not Magellan's catholicism that lead him to explore the rest of the world. It was not Vasco da Gama's devotion to the Pope or his strongly held catholic beliefs which led him to go on a voyage to India. It was not Christopher Columbus' religious beliefs that directed him to seek an alternate route to India. Rather, at the time, India and the east had something which the rest of the world coveted. Look at it this way. Today, more people from Asia and africa flock to the West. Even if we didn't count the refugees, that still leaves millions of people in the east arriving in droves to the west in search of better lives, education or jobs. Does that mean the "eastern spirit" is better than the "western spirit" ?? Wrong !! The people in the east want something that the westerners have ! For atleast 2500 years, India drained the west of valuable gold and precious stones in exchange for spices, grains, ivory, silk, diamonds and cloth that were found nowhere else in the world. In the year 77 CE Pliny the Elder complained, "There is no year in which India does not drain the Roman Empire of fifty million silver coins". Until the 1700s India was the only source of diamonds in the ENTIRE WORLD. India's fabulous wealth attracted muslim invaders who succeeded in unseating India's last hindu king in the 11th century AD. Between then and the 18th century, India was still either the world's largest or second largest economy (trading places which medieval China). Indians were much more prosperous than the Europeans, judging by what mattered to Europeans the most ! Silver, gold, precious stones, grains, silk, spices and cloth. Westerners were incessantly obsessed with obtaining shorter trade routes with India because India had something that they wanted. Indians went boldly into new lands too ! Indians colonized the whole of south east asia and introduced Buddhism to the far east, sri lanka and south east asia. Indians traded with the Arabs and exchanged information, ideas, culture and technology with them. "Work discipline, hygiene, systematic approach, punctuality" are not western virtues. In fact, indian astrologers, astronomers, scientists, traders, farmers, feudal lords, kings, soldiers, sculptors and artists all possessed a stunning degree of all these virtues. Since we read history from a western perspective which is inherently written with an imperialist slant, over centuries, white people have tried to convince us that we are not as good as them. That our virtues, our systems, our policies, our people are not as clever, hard-working, sensible or prosperous as them. Unfortunately, 99% of indians have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA how rich India was before she was bled dry by an insidious combination of central asian invaders from the north west and sea-faring europeans. I strongly urge you to read more about indian history before asserting that the west is and was superior in every way that mattered. The truth is we have been fed on a steady diet of white supremacy masquerading as history for most of our lives. If we cared to really read history (even history penned by white traders, writers and scientists) we will realize how rich indians were even as late as 1750. Per capita income, GDP and standard of living were all higher than the europeans till we were run over by hordes of "superior" white men who proceeded to plunder the country.

Tamils are not dumb. They are the smartest. For your information, all North Indian girls want to get a well established Madrassi IT professional!! But why did Tamils lose a vast amount of treasure - a significant source of equity for their overseas trade in South East Asia. Why were the Pandya Kingdom displaced by the Muslim satraps of the Delhi sultanate who could care less for the rapidly worsening plight of the Tamil traders stranglehold over trade in South East Asia. The entire culture is responsible for not being able to generate a sufficient response to a challenger. First of all why was not track kept of challengers and why were they not addressed in the beginning itself. The US spends so much time tracking who is rising in the world and they are already alert even to a poor and incapable India, growing though it is. But any have grown to taper off. Giving excuses for failure is not an option. A capable culture would have handled challenges head on.

Nobody is belittling Indian past culture which managed to match up to the best in the world then. It is the inability to move on and get better with time that is being questioned in a serious manner. We are still playing the same old broken record while the world is going places. Definitely if we were a substantial culture we would not be just quoting Murgunathan, amul dairy and akshay patra. We would be quoting scores of Nobel Prize winners and hundreds of IT "products" and number of patents which are more than the US. That would do justice to us. Fortunately many of us are now giving up Indian culture or at least its worst qualities which are substantial. It was the British with Ram Mohan Roy's help who had to forcefully put an end to Sati and Thiugee. Thank God we were forced to give up Indian culture then. And thank god many of us are giving up Indian culture now and i just hope we borrow just the best from the West and not its worst. And as a result i am sure we will reach there. It will take time and Indians have to be patient. But we will make it!

I agree entirely with you. Even Catholic spirit then was far more positive than the Indian spirit. So fearlessly adventuresome. Going boldy into new lands; questioning accepted stultifying practices under the gaze of a rational spirit. At that time there was no Protestantism!! But then the Protestant work ethic emerged and added even more value. To the questioning mind of the Enlightenment, some very useful habits got added - work discipline; hygiene; systematic approach; punctuality. These were essential for the Industrial revolution and emergence of Capitalism. Catholic Enlightenment plus Protestant Reformation both outshone us so magnificently. Both of them were outstanding achievements in their right.

Sure Gluteus, but I hope you'll think twice before trashing "indian culture" online. Or if you do, I really hope you read extensively about India, her history and ALL her cultures before deciding to do it. I am not the only decently well-read indian out there who is ready to call bigotry out when I see it. There are sure to be millions more like me. So if you wanna belittle indian culture, be ready to be fact-checked. Ciao.

I am no authority on mobile commerce or technology and associated limitations in this scenario. However, just logically given the very high mobile penetration rates that India has in cities and villages, this does sound promising. The devil could be in the detail though such as information security issues/ID theft, tracking of ownership, fraud related to Id (challenges with GSM - easy to use/throw SIM cards), regulatory issues, tracking challenges.

Tie-ups of established banks with well known mobile service providers offering such services, dedicated and secure mobile banking/m-commerce transaction networks and some other regulatory mechanisms may help in this regard. How quickly this will evolve to payment of everything through mobile, taxes through mobile, banking on mobile etc is a another question.

There was an article on e-bay's comeback on NYT (07.27.2012) that discussed mobile commerce as the reason for ebay's survival supported by paypal and its mobile app...that may be worth a read too this regard.

"I see you are so blindly wrapped in an imaginary world of Indian superiority" - WRONG. I strongly believe that no single country or culture can claim to be superior. If I ever did in any of my posts, please feel free to point out where and I will recant my assertion. I believe indians are just as capable as westerners to establish a peaceful, egalitarian society where merit and hard work decide a person's position in the totem pole. However, I will continue to refute anyone who suggests that indian culture fundamentally disadvantages us from achieving a better society. Small-minded, greedy, power-hungry everyday indians (happens to the whitest of the whites too) twisted the rules in their favor to help them advance in life without having to work hard. It started with the so-called "upper castes" who conveniently interpreted the vedas to claim superiority over the others and established a rigid caste system. India used to be an egalitarian society. In fact, when there was a vaishnavite resurgence in south india, all people were considered equals regardless of caste. However, since the system was so advantageous to the brahmins and the kshatriyas (who were always a minority), they decided on keeping the status quo. If India had a Martin Luther(minus the anti-semitism of course) who had established an egalitarian and more transparent form of hinduism where the holy scriptures were translated in all vernacular languages and disseminated for every person in the land to read and comprehend, we would've been a much more modern society. Unfortunately, unlike France, Spain, Italy, the UK and all the other european countries who had the advantage of proximity to help hasten the demise of papal hegemony over the exegesis of christian scripture, we did not have any country nearby where a socio-religious reformist catalyzed such a powerful movement. It does not make India inferior, it makes her unfortunate. (Just like europeans were unfortunate not to have food security and prosperity for centuries when most indians had those things - between 600 BC and 1200 AD).

"Is it fair to compare present India with the present West and
see how shallow, ridiculous and pitiable it is." - It is just as fair to berate black americans, native americans, aboriginal australians and black south africans for not being as advanced as white europeans in those countries. Black americans in america were not allowed to develop until 1968. A systematic form of discrimination ensured that they would never ever become wealthy or respectable in society. They could not run businesses because the majority white community would not give them any business. They were not provided any credit because they were black. They could not live in good neighborhoods or send their kids to good schools, because all the good schools were for the majority white people. They were not allowed to vote to change discriminatory legislation passed by the majority white legislators. Similarly, soon after the europeans came to India, they devised rules to oppress the locals. They made English the language of communication so that MOST indians would'nt get jobs, hence make no money. They passed laws that taxed prosperous indian traders and forced them out of their respective trades. They forced farmers to grow indigo instead of wheat or rice leading to famines that killed of tens of millions of people. They refused to let indians bid for contracts in building railways, roads or telegraph lines. They refused indians the right to make their own clothes and forced indians to buy expensive clothes shipped from manchester in the UK. They harassed, beat, raped and killed indians who dared to protest. During the 300 odd years the europeans stayed in India, by a clever policy of systematic taxation, legislation, harassment, coercion and discrimination, they converted prosperous communities into impoverished hell-holes.
If you look at world population (which is an indirect measure of prosperity), India's population was always significantly more than that of all of europe put together. Even when the turks, the persians and the mongols invaded India and slaughtered millions of local indians, India's population never dipped very significantly. When the british arrived it was around 200 million people. For the next 200 years it hadn't even doubled. After they left, it doubled in 30 years ! and then again in another 30 years. So you figure it out.

And we have the temerity to write bombastic words of self-glorification and congratulate ourselves on our greatness!! Try to see beyond your delusions and realize that fake prestige harms the Nation rather than helping it.